Mumbai: Builder asked to give flat within 2 months or pay 20L compensation, hefty interest

A consumer commission in Bandra ordered a builder to hand over within two months a flat in Chembur pending handover since 2014, for which a couple had paid booking amount of Rs. 45 lakhs, or pay to them Rs. 20 lakhs in compensation along with a refund of their amount with a massive 24 percent per annum interest from 2013 onwards.

Sachin Sandbhor and Anita Sandbhor had approached the commission in 2020 seeking redress under the Consumer Protection Act. They had stated in their complaint that they had booked a 751 sq ft flat costing Rs. 80 lakhs in an under-construction project ‘Srushti Enclave’ in Subhash Nagar, Chembur of Gadkari Builders and Associates owned by Jaydeep Gadkari. They had been promised the possession of the flat in April 2014, but had to live in a rental accommodation as they did not get its possession.

The Sandbhors had approached a private bank for a housing loan. Though a bank had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 32 lakhs, it refused to disburse the amount as it found the building did not have requisite permissions. The couple complained that the booking amount of Rs. 45 lakhs was taken from them by suppressing facts regarding the approvals and permissions and to pay the amount they had to sell the home they were living in then and stay at a rental accommodation as they did not get possession of the new home. Resultantly, they incurred rent expenses too, they complained.

The commission had sent a notice to the builder, but since there was no response, the order was passed ex-parte against him. Commission's President RG Wankhede and member SV Kalal said in their order that the private bank had refused to disburse the loan amount it had sanctioned due to lack of requisite permissions. It noted the couple’s troubles at having to sell their home and stay at a rented place. The couple had produced the sale deed of their house as proof for the same. It observed that since the developer did not hand over the flat as per agreement, they had to go through huge financial loss. This, in its opinion, it held, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.